[Halifax] Grand Haven Estates | ? m | 4x12 fl | U/C

[kph06]

Case 16783 Details

Since this now has a name and an application for a development agreement has been made I figured I'd make a thread. This is the formal proposal for the Clayton Developments lands off Washmill Lake Drive. Not a terribly inspiring design, but it will be an interesting cluster of height on top of the hill.

Site Plan

Elevations


Source

[dmac26]

If we can learn anything from the past- Le Corbusier's Radiant City idea was great for preserving park space but these types of developments do not make great communities. This part of the City in my opinion has gone to far with these suburban condos, yet we can't get a decent residential tower in the downtown core.

[DigitalNinja]

Ugh, too much green and to accessible for cars.

[-Harlington-]

not amazing but not to bad,
and is that no surface parking that i see ?
:O

[halifaxboyns]

There is suface parking - have a look at the site plan. I actually don't think this is too bad - I'm curious about the common building in the middle? What amenities will be in it? Never mind, just looked at the floor plans, gym, ball room and swimming pool. Very nice.

I think this is a reasonably good cluster development for high density; retains some good green space (has community gardens - see site plan). My concern with the pedestrian level is the large blankwalls at grade appear to be 2 stories to conceal the indoor parking? I'm not a fan of that...they could do something to make that better. Put in fake windows perhaps?

But I don't think this is horrible. It's a great way to get a huge chunk of density into these typically low density communities. If you look at Bedford West, I did a rough calculation of the cumulative gross density so far and it came out to an average of about 22 persons/acre, which is sad. I think at the end it might be upward of 40, which is good but it just hasn't gotten there yet. Plus, won't this be within walking distance of the new transit site on Willet street for Lacewood? Isn't that the site they went with?

[someone123]

These are better than lower density detached houses but they are still poorly-designed suburbia.

Even if the developer wanted to make this pedestrian-oriented it would probably largely fail because everything else in this area is car-oriented. The city needs to take the lead here and encourage better road networks, higher densities, better site planning, etc. Right now what's happening is pretty much the opposite due to density limits, parking requirements, and minimum setbacks.

[MonctonRad]

I personally rather like this. I think that it's good density and the idea of the central building with pool and other common recreational facilities is quite nice. It might help to build a sense of community for this development. There is also nothing wrong with the green space IMHO.

I think large developments such as this should include some basic retailing services such as a community convenience store, post office and magazine shop. This would help to defeat the suburban car culture. This development is also probably large enough to have it's own bus stop.

[-Harlington-]

they should have some retail type walkable area around here

there is enough significantly large buildings there to warrant a few generic stores so they dont have to walk/drive to bayers lake or lacewood areas

[fenwick16]

I like the appearance of this development and, with four 12 storey buildings, it will be quite impressive from the Bi-Centennial Highway. I pasted the site layout drawing - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...70SitePlan.pdf - unto a screen capture of Bing Maps. This is approximately where it will be located. The scale might be a bit off (but I think that it is within about +/-20%). The following document gives a description of the location - "Block B" - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...4StageI_DA.pdf

[coolmillion]

I agree with someone123. There is a serious lack of pedestrian infrastructure and connectivity. Even if sidewalks are included it's unlikely people will use them if there are no destinations within easy reach. Allowing this type of development to go ahead without all of the other pieces in place is short-sighted. The vast majority of all trips in and out will be made by car. That doesn't exactly jive with the long term goals of the regional plan. With such high population density the road network in this part of town should be much better than it is.

[halifaxboyns]

I would also agree with someone123 as well. I'm willing to guess this will have no connection to the multi to the left of fenwick's image.

In this context, I don't think that groundfloor retail is going to work too well - although the centre common building has a cafe according to the plans. It would work better if this community had been designed to pedestrian friendly and lots more high density clustered around it. Say two more of these on either side of the proposal and then something similar below it - but more pedestrian oriented (closer to the street; better walking connections).

[spaustin]

Talk about ugly! It may look alright as a rendering from a viewpoint that you would only ever see if were sitting in a helicopter, but this going to be one of the most ugly developments from the ground. Blank brick walls on all four buildings going up to the second floor? Yuck! Should make an attractive target for graffiti.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by spaustin

Talk about ugly! It may look alright as a rendering from a viewpoint that you would only ever see if were sitting in a helicopter, but this going to be one of the most ugly developments from the ground. Blank brick walls on all four buildings going up to the second floor? Yuck! Should make an attractive target for graffiti.

That's what I was saying earlier - I'd love to see what a CPTED would say about the blank walls?

[fenwick16]

Other than the blank walls, I like the layout. It appears as though the blank walls hide two levels of an above ground parking garage. I think that a simple fix would be to have open air parking levels. Most people (especially women) would probably feel safer with the parking levels open. Personally, I see nothing wrong with having the lowest garage level completely open.

[Jstaleness]

I'd rather see two 24 storey buildings there.

[eastcoastal]

OK- I have to say I think this is potentially disastrous. Whoever mentioned the shitty Corbusian towers in parks that were part of the urban design thinking of the mid-century was right. These isolated stacks of people floating out in green-space are terrible responses to the need to house human beings.

Give me a break. A cafe in the common building? My guess is that within a few years the cafe will be out of business. Nothing to do here, but drive to your parking spot and scuttle up to your unit.

Ugh.

[fenwick16]

This is a suburban development. Just because high density might be best for transportation and shopping it doesn't mean that everybody will want to live in such an environment. Many people who live near cities will still want lower density and there should be that option.

If you look at the site layout this is within walking distance of the Bayers Lake Shopping area. People who can't walk less than a kilometer are probably just lazy. And why wouldn't 360 units be able to support at least a cafe or some sort of convenience store (there are small towns this size in Nova Scotia that can support more than one store)?

Are people looking at the rendering surrounded by wide open fields and thinking that this is reality? if you look at the site plan this is already surrounded by apartment buildings. This link shows the location where this is being built (next to the water tank) - http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rf7...ia&FORM=LMLTCC . It is also within walking distance of the new Halifax Mainland Commons building, baseball diamonds, shopping ... If people are going to just drive up and stay in their apartment then that is probably their choice, not due to lack of amenities. (The Washmill Lake Underpass will be complete before the first apartment building is complete - I assume there will be a sidewalk leading directly under the Bi-Centennial Highway to the Bayers Lake Shopping area. The only way to get closer is to build apartment buildings within the Bayers Lake Shopping parking lots)

The location will likely be a selling point for this development. On the other hand, I don't like the two storey blank walls.

[DigitalNinja]

My problem is with the HRM allowing as much sprawl as they are.
This is comparing apples to oranges but just for a comparison.
HRM is about 5500km sq and has a pop of about 400,000 people. It's about 70 people for every square kilometer.
Shanghai is close to the size of HRM at 7500km sq and has a population of 19 million people. They should change the boundaries of HRM, because as of now, many people who live in the city their tax dollars are just going towards fixing roads for everyone else.

[fenwick16]

I agree with the concept of reducing urban sprawl but the density for this development is 30 people per acre which works out to 30 people/acre x 247 acres/(sq. km) = 7,410 people/(sq. Km). But of course this isn't a square kilometer so there won't be 7,410 people at this project.

If there were 7,410 people/(sq. km) x 5500 sq. km throughout the HRM there would be 40,755,000 people in the HRM.

PS: As a comparison - the city of Toronto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_map.png (not the entire metropolitan area) has 2,503,281 people on 630 square km = 3973 people/(square km) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto . This is 3973 people/(square km) x 1(sq km)/247acres = 3973/247 = 16 people per acre.

This following link has some interesting information regarding efficient suburban density - http://www.ti.org/vaupdate17.html . I don't know how accurate it is and I don't know anything about the organization that published it.

PS: My point is - this Panorama development is a step towards reducing urban sprawl. In my opinion, encouraging urban sprawl means encouraging growth in places like Timberlea, Fall River, Waverly, Sackville ...

[spaustin]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

And why wouldn't 360 units be able to support at least a cafe or some sort of convenience store (there are small towns this size in Nova Scotia that can support more than one store)?

See the thing is a small town is usually a place that other people, besides the immediate townsfolk, also pass through. Out in the rural areas, there tends to also be less competition. I don't think this development has any of the required conditions for winning retail. It's basically a deadend so it's really not going to draw in anyone from outside the development leaving about 700 people, tops, to market to. Those 700 people live in a large city whose travels take them all over the place and not some small town with one store/cafe/restaurant to choose from. They have plenty of choices about where to spend their dollars. Given the current design, I just don't see this as a great spot for retail.